On 4/5/2016 3:21 PM, Sharon Goldberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Danny Mayer <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 4/5/2016 2:28 PM, Sharon Goldberg wrote:
>     > Dear WG,
>     >
>     > To follow up on my comments on draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid-00 at the
>     > IETF'95 WG meeting just now. The current draft requires the use of an
>     > extension field.  I believe the goals of the draft can be
>     accomplished
>     > without using an extension field, in a backwards compatible fashion.
>     >
>     > The goal of the draft is to limit the information exposed by the REFID
>     > while still preserving robustness to "length-1" timing loops where
>     > system A takes time from system B, but system B takes time from
>     system A. Â
>     > This proposal allow system A to limit the info it leaks in its refID,
>     > without harming any of its legacy clients.Â
>     >
>     > Suppose system A is taking time from system B. Then there are two cases:
>     > 1) If A gets a time query from system B, A puts the IP of B in the refID
>     > of its response. This way, even a legacy B can tell it cannot take time
>     > from A because this would cause a timing loop.
>     >
>     > 2) If A gets a time query from system C, A puts a "nonsense" value in
>     > its refID.  Even a legacy C can see that its IP is not in the
>     refID,
>     > and so it is allowed to take time from A.Â
>     >
>     > One question is what this "nonsense" value should be.  I think it
>     > should be a fixed value. For example 0.0.0.0.  We would not want a
>     > randomly-chosen value since this might collide with actual IP addresses
>     > on the network.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Sharon
> 
>     The problem that I was alluding to in the jabber room is this. I'll keep
>     the problem simple and to one example.
> 
>     A takes its time from B over an IPv4 address. A then gets a time query
>     from C over IPv6. How does it know if B and C are the same system or
>     different system? A has no information about that.
> 
>     Is this clearer?
> 
> Yes, it's clear. How does the current ntpd implementation deal with this
> problem? Â 
> 

Currently it doesn't. One of my proposals is for each system to generate
a RefID and use that for all interfaces. I'm not sure if that works for
all cases or causes other issues.

Danny

_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

Reply via email to